Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 314 (508129)
05-10-2009 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Trev777
05-10-2009 3:51 PM


Re: THOSE FINCHES
Darwin collected what he regarded as 9 finch species during his voyage on Beagle 1831-1836). These finches were classified as sparate species based on their beak shape, size, colour, feeding etc. darwin's argument sounded so good, no-one bothered to test it by seeing if they were really separate and could not interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Now it has been discovered that Darwins finches can interbreed and produce fertile offspring if given the opportunity, so they are really one species, and provide no evidence for the evolution of new species, and never have. This historic first and foundational evidence for Darwin's theory turns out to be false.
You seem strangely confused about what Darwin claimed about the Galapagos finches.
(1) Darwin did not claim that they were reproductively isolated, or that they weren't: so this is not something that he could conceivably have been wrong about.
(2) Darwin barely mentions the Galapagos finches in the Origin of Species. Here is the complete text of the Origin of Species. If you will search through it, you will find three uses of the word "finch", none of them references to the Galapagos finches. And yet you claim that they were the "foundational evidence" for his theory!
(3) Darwin does however make a passing reference to the "birds of the Galapagos", not mentioning finches or giving any details, in the section of chapter II entitled "DOUBTFUL SPECIES":
The forms which possess in some considerable degree the character of species, but which are so closely similar to other forms, or are so closely linked to them by intermediate gradations, that naturalists do not like to rank them as distinct species, are in several respects the most important for us [...] Many years ago, when comparing, and seeing others compare, the birds from the closely neighbouring islands of the Galapagos Archipelago, one with another, and with those from the American mainland, I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties.
The fact that these finches, which were classed as separate species by creationist zoologists, can in fact interbreed, therefore proves his point.
---
In addition, there is one error in your post that you could have figured out for yourself, despite your ignorance of Darwin. You claim that "no-one bothered" to check that they were interfertile. Then how do you suppose you know that they are?
All creatures adapt but they don't evolve into another creature. Adaption is the built in ability of living creatures to cope with changes in their environment. The same goes for humans, the different skin colours were all in-built so that the sons of Noah and their generations adapted to the various climates as they spread across the globe.
You don't know much about biology, do you?
Incidently Darwin was still a creationist when he came off the Beagle, but later was influenced by the infamous X-club of humanists.
The X Club was founded in 1864. Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Trev777, posted 05-10-2009 3:51 PM Trev777 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2009 9:04 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 77 of 314 (508135)
05-10-2009 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
05-10-2009 8:24 PM


Re: THOSE Creationists!
Hey Dr A,
The X Club was founded in 1864. Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859.
Nine men, a dinner club, yeah, that's dangerous. It seems that Darwin was not a member, not included in any of the meetings, and that they were more influenced by his book than he was by their publications.
Looks like more creationist rabble-rousing and trying to discredit Darwin rather than to deal with the theory and the evidence for that theory.
This is known as the ad hominem logical fallacy, the usual resort of people who have no actual argument, but don't like the evidence.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2009 8:24 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Trev777, posted 05-11-2009 6:24 PM RAZD has replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 78 of 314 (508225)
05-11-2009 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Trev777
05-10-2009 3:51 PM


Re: THOSE FINCHES
Trev777 writes:
Darwin collected what he regarded as 9 finch species during his voyage on Beagle 1831-1836). These finches were classified as sparate species based on their beak shape, size, colour, feeding etc. darwin's argument sounded so good, no-one bothered to test it by seeing if they were really separate and could not interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
Grossly incorrect. Darwin didn't realize that his birds were all finches. It was done by Owen, partly based on examination of Darwin's inadequate collection, but mostly based on the examination of the Beagle's Captain, Robert FitzRoy's collection. Darwin did think that his mockingbirds were separate species, as well as the turtles. Darwin was correct in the first case and incorrect in the second.
Now it has been discovered that Darwins finches can interbreed and produce fertile offspring if given the opportunity, so they are really one species, and provide no evidence for the evolution of new species, and never have. This historic first and foundational evidence for Darwin's theory turns out to be false.
Nonsense. Only three of the 13 species have been observed to interbreed, and those are three of the species of ground finch, already known to be closely related. All in all, this isn't evidence against Darwin's theories, but rather great support for them. Just think, there are related species of bird that will interbreed under certain stressful conditions. That, by the way, is what biologists know as gene flow. Gene flow is one of the ways that genetic diversity in a population is increased (in other words, a mechanism of evolution).
All creatures adapt but they don't evolve into another creature. Adaption is the built in ability of living creatures to cope with changes in their environment. The same goes for humans, the different skin colours were all in-built so that the sons of Noah and their generations adapted to the various climates as they spread across the globe.
Nope. That's not evolution. It really doesn't matter whether or not you like it, evolution happens. Take Darwin's finches. Genetic analysis has shown that they are all descended from a common ancestor. The grass quit from Ecuador appears to also share a common ancestor.
Incidently Darwin was still a creationist when he came off the Beagle, but later was influenced by the infamous X-club of humanists.
That's just silly. Many who have studied Darwin's life in detail have opined that the final blow to Darwin's shaky faith was the death of his daughter Anne in 1851. It was Darwin who tended his sick daughter for some time as she died. Some have thought that he may have prayed and found his prayers unanswered and therefore decided that if there is a god, it isn't a caring god. But then, Darwin didn't say much about his religious beliefs. Some have speculated that he may have been deist or agnostic (like his friend T.H. Huxley). All are secure with the idea that not a glimmer of creationism remained by 1859, at least, no more than that expressed by deism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Trev777, posted 05-10-2009 3:51 PM Trev777 has not replied

  
Trev777
Junior Member (Idle past 5427 days)
Posts: 14
From: N. Ireland
Joined: 05-03-2009


Message 79 of 314 (508238)
05-11-2009 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by RAZD
05-10-2009 9:04 PM


Re: THOSE Creationists!
Hi Evolutionary friends
Seriously I wouln't discredit Darwin, I believe in Evolution -WITHIN A SPECIES. Dogs have always been dogs, elephants have always been elephants, etc. With all the "millions" of years surely there would be thousands of fossil finds of intermediary forms. Never mind human bones, -sorry for going off course a bit but how does population fit an evolutionary timescale. Extrapolate back and most studies end up around 4-5000 years with a handful of people. Stretch it maybe to 10000 years, -then what? There would have to have been either many different disasters limiting the population and in primitive conditions, or a worldwide disaster every 5-10000 years. To reach 50000 years would be relly stretching it. Historic world population just dosen't fit with the evolutionary model.
Just think guys -world history, - 6000 years- thats it!
God bless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2009 9:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Richard Townsend, posted 05-11-2009 6:30 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2009 7:58 PM Trev777 has replied
 Message 82 by Coragyps, posted 05-11-2009 8:04 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2009 8:13 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 84 by Coyote, posted 05-11-2009 8:20 PM Trev777 has replied

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4731 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 80 of 314 (508239)
05-11-2009 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Trev777
05-11-2009 6:24 PM


Re: THOSE Creationists!
Hi Evolutionary friends
Seriously I wouln't discredit Darwin, I believe in Evolution -WITHIN A SPECIES. Dogs have always been dogs, elephants have always been elephants, etc. With all the "millions" of years surely there would be thousands of fossil finds of intermediary forms. Never mind human bones, -sorry for going off course a bit but how does population fit an evolutionary timescale. Extrapolate back and most studies end up around 4-5000 years with a handful of people. Stretch it maybe to 10000 years, -then what? There would have to have been either many different disasters limiting the population and in primitive conditions, or a worldwide disaster every 5-10000 years. To reach 50000 years would be relly stretching it. Historic world population just dosen't fit with the evolutionary model.
Just think guys -world history, - 6000 years- thats it!
Hmm, the way that's written makes me pretty sure you don't believe this and you're just trying to wind people up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Trev777, posted 05-11-2009 6:24 PM Trev777 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 81 of 314 (508245)
05-11-2009 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Trev777
05-11-2009 6:24 PM


Re: THOSE Creationists!
Hi Trev777,
... I believe in Evolution -WITHIN A SPECIES.
Curiously, evolution says that all changes occur within species. Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Those populations are pools of breeding members of a species.
Dogs have always been dogs, elephants have always been elephants, etc.
Interestingly, this is false, but not because of some other mechanism than evolution, but because as we go back in time we see changes within the breeding populations such that those species are not classified as dogs or elephants. Go back far enough and you find a common ancestor to dogs and elephants, so either dogs are elephants or your statement is false. When we look at the fossils of that common ancestor we see that it is neither dog nor elephant.
If you want to discuss this issue further see the Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? thread.
With all the "millions" of years surely there would be thousands of fossil finds of intermediary forms.
There are. In fact there are millions upon millions of fossils of intermediate forms. In fact there are no fossils that are NOT of intermediate forms.
Never mind human bones,
Can you point out the point in this lineage where there is any break in the transition between intermediate forms:
-sorry for going off course a bit but how does population fit an evolutionary timescale. Extrapolate back and most studies end up around 4-5000 years with a handful of people. Stretch it maybe to 10000 years, -then what?
Keyword: extrapolate. All such extrapolations are doubtful, no matter how carefully done, especially when you get outside the range of data represented by the minimim less 1/2 the data range, to the maximum plus 1/2 the data range. IE - if you have a thousand years of data you should not extrapolate over more than two thousand years.
Another problem with extrapolations is that they are based on assumptions: if your assumption is wrong the result is worthless.
Finally, extrapolations are mathematical models. Strangely, no mathematical is capable of altering reality in any way, and what this means is that where the mathematical model and reality disagree it is the model that is wrong.
There would have to have been either many different disasters limiting the population and in primitive conditions, or a worldwide disaster every 5-10000 years.
Or there could be a mechanism that works constantly, continuously whittling away at the population: something like starvation and disease. Population size is a constantly changing balance between births and deaths, and so far nobody has been able to eliminate death from the equation. In primitive and ancient societies, infant mortality alone, was up to 50% - many times higher than in our modern society.
There is also the problem of providing sustenance for the populations in question - populations are limited by the minimum necessary resource, whether food, water, or protection from elements, predators and diseases. Interestingly, this limitation of resources necessary to life is what drives natural selection and causes evolution to occur in all populations.
Historic world population just dosen't fit with the evolutionary model.
Except that what you describe is not based on evolution or science at all, instead it is a common, often refuted, creationist PRATT:
CB620: Population growth
quote:
Claim CB620:
A reasonable assumption of population growth rate (0.5 percent) fits with a population that began with two people about 4000 years ago, not with a human history of millions of years.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 167-169.
The population growth rate proposed by the claim would imply unreasonable populations early in history. We will be more generous in our calculations and start with eight people in 2350 B.C.E. (a traditional date for the Flood). Then, assuming a growth rate of 0.5 percent per year, the population after N years is given by
P(N) = 8 (1.005)^N
The Pyramids of Giza were constructed before 2490 B.C.E., even before the proposed Flood date. Even if we assume they were built 100 years after the flood, then the world population for their construction was 13 people. In 1446 B.C.E., when Moses was said to be leading 600,000 men (plus women and children) on the Exodus, this model of population growth gives 726 people in the world. In 481 B.C.E., Xerxes gathered an army of 2,641,000 (according to Herodotus) when the world population, according to the model, was 89,425. Even allowing for exaggerated numbers, the population model makes no sense.
As you see, a strict mathematical model like this is ridiculous.
Just think guys -world history, - 6000 years- thats it!
And - because it is contradicted by the actual evidence of reality (in addition to the mathematically ridiculous result) - we can easily discard this as another false idea, and not a scientific postulation nor any indication of reality.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Trev777, posted 05-11-2009 6:24 PM Trev777 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Trev777, posted 05-12-2009 6:24 PM RAZD has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 82 of 314 (508248)
05-11-2009 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Trev777
05-11-2009 6:24 PM


Re: THOSE Creationists!
but how does population fit an evolutionary timescale. Extrapolate back and most studies end up around 4-5000 years with a handful of people.
But if you don't extrapolate, and look instead at the data and the fossils and the leavings of people in prehistory, you eventually end up looking at transitional species like Homo erectus and such. Apply your logic to populations of houseflies, and you'll find they were created in September 2007.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Trev777, posted 05-11-2009 6:24 PM Trev777 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 83 of 314 (508249)
05-11-2009 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Trev777
05-11-2009 6:24 PM


Re: THOSE Creationists!
Seriously I wouln't discredit Darwin, I believe in Evolution -WITHIN A SPECIES. Dogs have always been dogs, elephants have always been elephants, etc. With all the "millions" of years surely there would be thousands of fossil finds of intermediary forms.
There are.
Never mind human bones, -sorry for going off course a bit but how does population fit an evolutionary timescale.
As your question is off topic, perhaps you would be best advised to use the forum search to find one of the threads in which creationist gibberish about population growth is blown to pieces. It is, in my opinion, in the top three dumbest creationist arguments, and that's saying something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Trev777, posted 05-11-2009 6:24 PM Trev777 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 84 of 314 (508252)
05-11-2009 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Trev777
05-11-2009 6:24 PM


Re: THOSE Creationists!
Seriously I wouln't discredit Darwin, I believe in Evolution -WITHIN A SPECIES. Dogs have always been dogs, elephants have always been elephants, etc. With all the "millions" of years surely there would be thousands of fossil finds of intermediary forms. Never mind human bones, -sorry for going off course a bit but how does population fit an evolutionary timescale. Extrapolate back and most studies end up around 4-5000 years with a handful of people. Stretch it maybe to 10000 years, -then what? There would have to have been either many different disasters limiting the population and in primitive conditions, or a worldwide disaster every 5-10000 years. To reach 50000 years would be relly stretching it. Historic world population just dosen't fit with the evolutionary model.
Just think guys -world history, - 6000 years- thats it!
This is the Science Forum and you are posting creation "science?"
Gimme a break! Creation "science" is the exact opposite of real science. Perhaps it should be in another forum, eh?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Trev777, posted 05-11-2009 6:24 PM Trev777 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Trev777, posted 05-12-2009 6:36 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Trev777
Junior Member (Idle past 5427 days)
Posts: 14
From: N. Ireland
Joined: 05-03-2009


Message 85 of 314 (508363)
05-12-2009 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by RAZD
05-11-2009 7:58 PM


Re: THOSE Creationists!
Mutations cause the downgrading of a species, not an upward progression and tends to eventually eliminate it.
See Evolution -A theory in Crisis by Michael Denton.
On population - assume a much higher growth rate than 0.5% per annum.
I take my creationism very seriously, I don't take a simplistic view like many Christians, -as if God waves a wand for all miraculous Biblical events, He controls nature -so natural events will proove His existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2009 7:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Coyote, posted 05-12-2009 7:09 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2009 8:43 PM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 90 by pandion, posted 05-13-2009 1:07 AM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 05-13-2009 9:42 AM Trev777 has not replied
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-14-2009 4:19 AM Trev777 has not replied

  
Trev777
Junior Member (Idle past 5427 days)
Posts: 14
From: N. Ireland
Joined: 05-03-2009


Message 86 of 314 (508365)
05-12-2009 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Coyote
05-11-2009 8:20 PM


Re: THOSE Creationists!
I didn't think I mentioned anything religious, but now you mentioned- the Bible is peppered with science.
-Gen 1v1 In the Beginning (TIME), God created the Heavens (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER).....V2 and God
said let there be light (ENERGY).
The first Days work, -TIME SPACE MATTER AND ENERGY.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Coyote, posted 05-11-2009 8:20 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by lyx2no, posted 05-12-2009 7:14 PM Trev777 has replied
 Message 91 by AdminModulous, posted 05-13-2009 5:50 AM Trev777 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 87 of 314 (508368)
05-12-2009 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Trev777
05-12-2009 6:24 PM


Re: THOSE Creationists!
Mutations cause the downgrading of a species, not an upward progression and tends to eventually eliminate it.
This is factually incorrect, and will remain incorrect no matter how many times creationists claim it.
It is a reflection of their belief in scriptures, and "the fall." It is not something that has been found to be accurate by biologists.
On the contrary, harmful mutations are weeded out quickly by natural selection. The more harmful the mutation the quicker it is weeded out. Beneficial mutations tend to spread throughout a population.
Again, creation "science" is wrong. Again we see that it is the exact opposite of real science.
Here's a reference.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Trev777, posted 05-12-2009 6:24 PM Trev777 has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 88 of 314 (508370)
05-12-2009 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Trev777
05-12-2009 6:36 PM


WHAT
the Bible is peppered with science.
-Gen 1v1 In the Beginning (TIME), God created the Heavens (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER).....V2 and God
said let there be light (ENERGY).
The first Days work, -TIME SPACE MATTER AND ENERGY.
Why looky here Tin Tin is peppered with science too. Ships: buoyancy; Rockets: Newton's Third law; Steam engines: Carnot's therom; Knock-out gas: diffusion.
Dude, with your standard of "science" there isn't a thing written that isn't peppered with science.
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Brillig: TIME
Gyre: ANGULAR MOMENTUM
Are we on to something or what?

It is far easier for you, as civilized men, to behave like barbarians than it was for them, as barbarians, to behave like civilized men. Spock, Mirror Mirror

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Trev777, posted 05-12-2009 6:36 PM Trev777 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Trev777, posted 05-14-2009 6:12 PM lyx2no has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 89 of 314 (508376)
05-12-2009 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Trev777
05-12-2009 6:24 PM


Re: THOSE Creationists! Next up, the Gish Gallo ....?
Hi Trev777
Mutations cause the downgrading of a species, not an upward progression and tends to eventually eliminate it.
Do you have any scientific evidence of this?
-so natural events will proove His existence.
So then you must have scientific evidence of your claim about mutations
Message 86
- the Bible is peppered with science.
So, again, then you must have scientific evidedence of your claim about mutations.
See Evolution -A theory in Crisis by Michael Denton.
Off topic - you need to stick to transitional species. As a note, though, I wonder if you have read his latest book? In that book he concludes that evolution is inevitable, a product of design of the universe.
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm
enton]-->Google books link -->enton">Google books link< !--UE-->
Perhaps if you too follow where the science leads to "proove (SIC) His existence" then you will come to a similar conclusion.
On population - assume a much higher growth rate than 0.5% per annum.
Also off-topic, but here's a hint: with that population growth rate the population today (2009) should be 22,128,561,537 people, that's 22 billion. Current world population is 6,8 billion, so this growth rate is too high already.
The World Factbook
quote:
Population: 6,790,062,216 (July 2009 est.)
Here's another hint: do the math yourself with just 0.6% per annum growth. Here's the formula for this growth rate:
P(N) = 8 (1.006)^N
Where N is the number of years and P(N) is the total world population at year N.
Check my numbers: I get 15 people to build the pyramids, 1,785 for the exodus, 573,741 world population for Xerxes' army, ... and a current world population of 1,689,226,730,286 -- 1.7 TRILLION people.
Tell me what you get eh?
Meanwhile, you have made no response to several comments regarding your assertion about transitional species or about the common ancestor to dogs and elephants.
Perhaps you realize that you are as vastly wrong about evolution as you are about world population growth.
Or you realize you just don't have any answers and are trying to dodge off onto other topics a la Galloping Gish the "Gazelle" of Creationists.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : -
Edited by RAZD, : ;

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Trev777, posted 05-12-2009 6:24 PM Trev777 has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 90 of 314 (508385)
05-13-2009 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Trev777
05-12-2009 6:24 PM


Re: THOSE Creationists!
Trev666 writes:
Mutations cause the downgrading of a species, not an upward progression and tends to eventually eliminate it.
Actually, mutations have nothing to do with upgrading or downgrading anything. "Upgrading and downgrading" have nothing to do with evolution. That's pretty much an illogical and discredited position of those who are motivated by the blind faith of some religion. In fact, mutations create genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is neither an upgrade nor a down grade. Evolution is not an upward progression. Evolution is just a certain kind of change.
See Evolution -A theory in Crisis by Michael Denton.
Why? Denton is a mathematician, not a biologist. Why would his opinion about biology be relevant. Especially since he is a a YEC who also rejects geology, yet another science of which he is ignorant.
On population - assume a much higher growth rate than 0.5% per annum.
Why? Of course, to get the Tower of Babel built, and the pyramids built after the FLUD we would have to propose a population growth rate of more than 200% per year. RADZ pretty much showed you how mindless creationist assumptions about population are with his calculations.
I take my creationism very seriously,
I know. And every time I meet someone who does it gives me a spaced feeling a bit like I got when the Houston Rockets, without Yao and Tracy, blew out the LA Lakers in game 4. It's one of those things that leaves one speechless.
I don't take a simplistic view like many Christians,
That isn't evident from your posts.
-as if God waves a wand for all miraculous Biblical events, He controls nature -so natural events will proove His existence.
And that's not simplistic? You reduce nature to magic and claim that you are not being simplistic? How bizarre.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added blank lines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Trev777, posted 05-12-2009 6:24 PM Trev777 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024